Wednesday, October 28, 2015

Justin Trudeau's first decision as Prime Minister is to spend $10 million to renovate the official residence at 24 Sussex Drive.

Now he lived there once before, I think he might actually have been born while his parents were in residence there. So perhaps this is a case of going back to someplace from your childhood and being surprised that it is smaller and shabbier than you remembered.

Tuesday, October 27, 2015

The refugee/migrant crisis is unbelievable. And the answer is not the bleeding heart response of welcoming them into all countries.

How will this end?

It seems that Angela Merkel made an incredibly naïve move when she said the door to Germany was open to refugees. Who can handle the masses and the problems that come with them?

The extraordinary aerial photo of a column of refugees and migrants tramping through the fields of Slovenia may come to symbolize the moment the EU began to fall apart. The irony can be lost on no one: it was in order to prevent such scenes happening again in continental Europe that the alliance was forged in the first place in the late 1950's. Yet here we are more than half a century later facing the prospect of thousands - maybe hundreds of thousands - of displaced people freezing and starving in the grasslands of eastern Europe as winter closes in.

Thursday, October 22, 2015

Who knew? in the province of Quebec, a woman cannot change her name when she marries.

... in Quebec, since a 1981 reform of the civil law, women are not permitted to adopt their husband's name at marriage, not even if they apply for an official name change.

Procedures for any formal name change are very strict in Quebec, and the decision is up the director of civil status. It requires a serious reason, such as difficulty of use due to spelling or pronunciation, or bearing a name that is mocked or that has been made infamous.

The civil law reform took place shortly after the creation of the Quebec Charter of Rights in which equality between men and women was clearly stated, said Alain Roy, a family law professor at the University of Montreal.

Well, c’est la loi as we say in French – this is the law and we have to obey it. The Quebecois married after April 2, 1981 do not have the right to change their names (article 393 of the Civil Code of Quebec).
I was myself very frustrated to find it out. In many countries for generations it is normal for the wife to take her husband’s name. Or at least she has this choice. Unlike most of the countries in the world and unlike the federal government of Canada, the laws of the Province of Quebec, based on the name stability principle, say that marriage is not a reason for changing your name and no matter how many times a person gets married, there is only one name that should be used, the one you are born with.

The law doesn't seem that clear to me. #3 says "Everyone is entitled to rights of personality, such as the right to life, inviolability and integrity of his person, the respect of his name, reputation and privacy." I presume this is the one that pertains to name changes. Seems like this should be easy to challenge. http://ccq.lexum.com/ccq/fr#!fragment/art393

Tuesday, October 20, 2015

A woman said to me today that she was ecstatic about the election results. My jaw nearly dropped. She is a devout Catholic and she went on to say that the Spirit was really moving yesterday for so many people to vote all the same way. I asked her "which spirit?"

She confirmed what I had already suspected. Catholics, by and large, vote Liberal. They simply don't know, or perhaps don't care, that the Liberal party is 100% pro-choice since Justin Trudeau declared that all Liberal members of Parliament must vote pro-choice on any bills that come up in Parliament.

When I told her this fact, she replied "aren't all the parties the same?" Well, not exactly. At least if you are a Conservative member of Parliament, you are allowed to vote according to your conscience.

It confirms to me another point: people don't really know what having a conscience and acting according to one's conscience is. At least, it doesn't seem to matter one whit.

As Charles Krauthammar said tonight on Fox News, Canadians have elected the Liberal party for almost 100 years of their existence as a country. The Liberal party is the default party.

Why is that? I have a theory that will be sure to get me called racist. And I may be completely out to lunch on this. I admit that. But I think Canadians feel some kind of obligation to the province of Quebec. They hesitate to offend Quebecers. Since most Liberal party leaders are Francophones and most come from Quebec, electing that party is a nod of assent to that province.

Why this need to appease Quebec? It is baffling.

One pro-lifer told me that the reason the pro-life movement doesn't get anywhere in Canada is because they are held back by the position of Quebec on this issue. Quebec has the highest number of abortions in the country; it also has the highest number of common law relationships; and many of those don't even live together. Isn't that kind of weird? People who live together as a couple, but don't want to share the same physical space. Sort of let's have our cake and eat it too. Commitment is just too much, so let's have the fun parts of the relationship, but as for getting on with the rest of life, I'd rather do it solo, thank you very much.

Is this part of the reason Canada is so odd when it comes to matters of real importance? We are somehow held hostage by this province that lives according to its own rules. Quebec is a little country to itself, a kind of token France in the middle of America. It has abandoned its religious heritage and is far left on every moral issue, and expects the rest of us to follow its lead.

Enough, if this is what is going on in this country, I would rather we split. Give them their independence and let them go on their merry way. Because the rest of us don't want any part of it. I should say I don't want any part of it, I shouldn't speak for anyone else at this point.

Monday, October 19, 2015

My husband said a colleague of his walked into his office today and said "now don't be voting Conservative". I am so impressed by my husband's response: he actually engaged the guy in a conversation, beginning with the fact that neither the Liberal party or the NDP will allow their members to vote in the affirmative on any pro-life bill, in effect stripping away the meaning of their vote.

If you can't vote according to your conscience, why would you even become a member of Parliament?

His colleague hadn't really considered that aspect of things. In fact, as Ezra Levant says, the academic elite almost universally oppose Harper. As Ezra says, "they suffer from Harper-derangement syndrome". Ask them why they hate Harper and their reasons are rather flimsy.

The good side of Nick's conversation with his colleague is that this other fellow now wants to read Alexis de Toqueville. Way to go, quiet husband of mine. You have more guts than I do.

So check out Ezra's video "Why I'm voting Conservative" and hopefully a few of you haven't voted yet.

When I went to vote, I noticed that the polls were busy. And I heard that the advance polls were even busier. It seems that many people are turning out to vote. And that makes me uneasy. I fear a landslide of support for Justin Trudeau, the Liberal leader who has only worked a normal job for a a total of mine months of his entire life. A scary thought if he should be elected.

This links to the website of Citizens for Public Justice, an organization based in Ottawa that consists of two policy analysts and a 14-member board of directors who determine which issues they should focus on.

I scanned the website, under the heading of 2015 election bulletin and noticed the glaring absence of any reference to abortion, assisted suicide, euthanasia, or conscience rights. I emailed the contact person and was told the following:

You are right that we did not include issues of abortion, euthanasia, or conscience rights there. CPJ is a membership organization, where our members and 14 person National Board of Directors set out what we should be working on. We only have two Policy Analysts, and cannot possibly cover every important issue. So we need to choose and focus – and for the last decade or so, and for the last three elections at least – we have been mandated to develop expertise where other faith-based groups are not engaged at the federal level. Those issues of our focus have been poverty in Canada, climate justice and refugee rights.

He also stated that most churches have already stated their position on these issues and there was no need to repeat this with their resource. He also said that several groups were working around the election with these issues, so I should rest assured that these were indeed being covered.

I emailed him back and told him that I did not think that most churches had made public their policies on these issues, in fact quite the opposite. When the issue of abortion is raised, the majority of church clergy turn the other way and change the subject.

The issues of poverty, "climate justice" and refugee rights are issues that no one is ever going to get mad at you for. As long as you admit that these are justice issues, you are on the politically correct side. And whatever you do will ensure that your efforts will be approved, even if they cost you next to nothing.

Try raising the issue of abortion and see how much affirmation you get. Well, lots if you are pro-choice as was obvious in the all-candidates' debate on women's issues here in Halifax. If anyone were to stand up and admit to being pro-life, they would have been boo-ed out of the auditorium.

The issues of abortion, end-of-life issues, and conscience rights touch on one's personal morality and beliefs. And they cost you big time. Support the right to life of the unborn, and you are seen as the enemy of women and everyone's sexual freedom, which is a foundation of today's degenerate culture. Suggest that political candidates should be able to vote according to their conscience, or that doctors and nurses should be able to refuse to cooperate in procedures that go against their conscience, and you will be told that you are putting personal beliefs ahead of what the majority of people want. Therefore you are un-democratic.

This atmosphere of political correctness in Canada has produced silence around issues that are crucially important to our moral character.

Just tune in to the Republican debates in the US, and ask yourself where is our Ben Carson or our Carly Fiorina or Mike Huckabee? We don't have one.

And until organizations like Citizens for Public Justice realise that all issues must be on the table and all issues must be discussed with our political candidates, we won't have any Carsons or Fiorinas or Huckabees. They aren't allowed here.

Canada, from cradle to grave, the state will look after you. So just pay your taxes and keep your mouth shut. It is so much easier that way, isn't it? Save your indignation for "climate justice", whatever that means, and get enraged along with every other Canadian. It won't hurt you one bit.

Kudos to these fellows. I wish them every success. It is about time that someone challenged the Supreme Court and questioned how a small group of people can make legislation that is binding on all citizens.

Now if only someone would do the same in Canada. Unfortunately, we have a problem here: a lack of a Constitution like that of the US. We don't have the rights listed as definitively as they do. But there should be some way to challenge our Supreme Court here as well.

Thursday, October 8, 2015

Syriac Catholic Patriarch Ignatius Ephrem Joseph III Younan asks: “Why, we ask the western world, why not raise one’s voice over so much ferocity and injustice?”
The Melkite Greek Catholic Patriarch Gregory III has also said: “I do not understand why the world does not raise its voice against such acts of brutality.”

That’s right, it’s all for the sake of the spurious and self-defeating “dialogue.” Bagnasco should ask his colleagues in the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. He should ask bishops like McManus, Kevin Farrell, Jaime Soto and others why they move actively to silence and demonize voices that tell the truth about this persecution. He should ask them why the U.S. Catholic bishops tolerated dissent from so many core Catholic dogmas for decades, but move as ruthlessly as any Grand Inquisitor to suppress dissent from the idea that Islam is a Religion of Peace, which isn’t even a dogma of the Church. He should ask them why they are abandoning their Middle Eastern brethren and keeping their own people ignorant and complacent about the jihad threat.

Monday, October 5, 2015

I was going to post this the other day, but was advised to wait a while. I think it needs to be out there, even if my readership is small, perhaps it will be forwarded to others. It is important.

I have just begun to read www.jihadwatch.org regularly since I am concerned about the refugee crisis in Europe. I first heard Robert Spencer on Michael Coren's daily show, he was a weekly guest, but now that Coren is off the air, I have to seek out Spencer in other ways.

Many call him "Islamophobic" and a right-wing bigot. I don't think that is at all true. Spencer is a Maronite Catholic, a man well versed in Islamic writings and theology. He has made it his life's work to know Islam inside and out. And he perceives a very real and present danger with the flood of refugees into Europe.

By the way, the American Congress of Bishops pulled their representative who was to attend the annual Lutheran Conference in Dallas TX in August of this year, when they learned that Robert Spencer was to be the keynote speaker. Why did they not want him to be heard? This man is not a nutcase, he may be alarming but that could be because he has a warning to give.

I heard that our diocese here in Nova Scotia is preparing to sponsor one Syrian family per parish. For a total of 100 families. I sincerely hope this is not true.

Call me Islamophobic, but there is ample evidence that caution should be used when bringing in refugees from Muslim countries.

Mrs Merkel’s offer last month to accept all refugees from war-ravaged Syria opened the floodgates. More than a million migrants are expected this year alone, the bulk of them far from genuine asylum seekers. There is now deepening disquiet in this Christian country, dotted with churches, that it is being overwhelmed by people of a different religion and culture.

Some of the tales being told in Germany may just be xenophobic scaremongering. But there is no doubt that the country is grappling with a major culture clash as migrants pour in at the rate of 100 an hour or more.

People seem to be blissfully ignorant of the fact that a wave of refugees coming from a radically different country than your own is going to change your country forever. While the Christian teaching emphasizes compassion for the homeless and especially for the refugee, there really is a great danger in opening one's home country up to a group of people whose values are so very different from yours.

There is a naivety amongst many people whose hearts are in the right place. They really do wish to help the downtrodden and who fits that description better than a refugee family fleeing their country because of war? But compassion must be tempered with wisdom. As Jesus said "the poor you will always have with you". That is not an instruction to ignore the plight of the poor, but it is a statement that we shouldn't be surprised by the presence of poverty and of suffering. It will always be there. It doesn't mean that we have to be bleeding hearts every time we hear about it.

There is a call for prudence and wisdom in dealing with the refugee crisis. Amongst those refugees are people who do not wish us good. And we have a duty and a right to protect ourselves against the kind of violence that they may bring upon us. Amongst the refugees are those who are willing to advance the Islamic agenda of converting the whole world to Islam and that means converting the infidels. Guess who that is?

Saturday, October 3, 2015

The Alberta Catholic school board has stated that it will not follow the counsel of Archbishop Richard Smith on sex education and the policies concerning transgendered students, but will instead follow the program put forth by the government, a program that leaves transgendered students just where they are without the benefit of Catholic teaching on sexuality.

“I’ve had to search my conscience and decide which master I’m going to follow, and it’s the kids. I’ve chosen the kids and it puts me out of communion with the local ecclesial authority,” stated Edmonton Catholic School board trustee Patricia Grell to the Edmonton Journal.

“No one can interfere spiritually with another person ... be it teachers who are using contraception and going to communion, we have to respect that’s their decision,” she said.

Compare Grell's statement to the following sentences from the Winnipeg Statement of 1968 when the Conference of Canadian Bishops decided to defy the teachings of Pope Paul VI in his encyclical Humanae Vitae and give Catholics a wide berth on birth control.

It recognized that many Catholics, in spite of being bound by the encyclical, find it "either extremely difficult or even impossible to make their own all elements of this doctrine". These "should not be considered, or consider themselves, shut off from the body of the faithful. But they should remember that their good faith will be dependent on a sincere self-examination to determine the true motives and grounds for such suspension of assent and on continued effort to understand and deepen their knowledge of the teaching of the Church."[3] With regard to those in that situation, "the confessor or counsellor must show sympathetic understanding and reverence for the sincere good faith of those who fail in their effort to accept some point of the encyclical."[4]

Paragraph 26 stated: "In accord with the accepted principles of moral theology, if these persons have tried sincerely but without success to pursue a line of conduct in keeping with the given directives, they may be safely assured that, whoever honestly chooses that course which seems right to him does so in good conscience."[5]